戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (left1)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1                                              CEJ-AC distance in postmenopausal women is the result of
2                                              CEJ-AC distances were determined from digitized vertical
3                                        CPG-1/CEJ-1 and CPG-2 are expressed during embryonic developme
4 ability, but simultaneous depletion of CPG-1/CEJ-1 and CPG-2 resulted in multinucleated single-cell e
5  0.68, RS: 0.87 and 0.65, RT: 0.79 and 0.64, CEJ: 0.75 and 0.57).
6 r bone crest to cemento-enamel junction (ABC-CEJ) distances >2 mm.
7 rease (P </=0.05) was observed in CEJ-AP and CEJ-JE distances.
8 cant increase in the distances of JE-CEJ and CEJ-AP.
9 s and distances from the stent to the GM and CEJ in the test and control sites.
10                                       PD and CEJ-GM percentage of exact agreement measurements (95% C
11 namel junction (CEJ) to bone crest (CEJ-BC), CEJ to base of the defect (CEJ-BD), and BC to BD (BC-BD)
12 ers recorded included the following: CEJ-BC, CEJ-BD, BC-BD distances, and radiographic defect angle.
13  a triangular manner at 7 mm and 15 mm below CEJ.
14           Regarding M1, the distance between CEJ and the alveolar crest was significantly more corona
15  and the mesial and distal distances between CEJ and bone level were measured.
16 sp tip to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), CEJ to root apex, and cusp tip to root apex.
17   The variance of ultrasound versus clinical CEJ identifications showed a significant correlation (r
18  were significantly greater than the control CEJ-ABC distances.
19 ento-enamel junction to alveolar bone crest (CEJ-ABC) in the diabetic condition were equivalent to th
20 oenamel junction to the alveolar bone crest (CEJ-ABC).
21 cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to bone crest (CEJ-BC), CEJ to base of the defect (CEJ-BD), and BC to B
22 he cementoenamel junction to the bone crest [CEJ-BC]) were recorded using cone-beam computed tomograp
23 e crest (CEJ-BC), CEJ to base of the defect (CEJ-BD), and BC to BD (BC-BD); and depth of 2- and 3-wal
24              The mean difference in distance CEJ-BL was 0.1 mm (mesial) and 0.3 mm (distal) and great
25                            The mean distance CEJ-BL increased significantly up to age 45 (r2=0.07; be
26                            The mean distance CEJ-bone level was 1.4 mm (S.D.+/-0.7) in the 15 to 24 a
27 to-enamel junction, alveolar-crest distance (CEJ-AC, as measured on digitized vertical bite-wing radi
28 the apical limit up to 1 mm of the estimated CEJ) and CAF alone or combined with CM are suitable for
29                       The mean widths at FE, CEJ, MRW, and DRW were, respectively, 5.53 +/- 0.45 mm,
30  parameters recorded included the following: CEJ-BC, CEJ-BD, BC-BD distances, and radiographic defect
31 reement by as much as 57% for PD and 68% for CEJ-GM.
32 versus photographic measurements existed for CEJ (0.28) and RS (0.35).
33 igher for KTW, RD, and RT, and lower for GT, CEJ, and RS, for both clinical and photographic measurem
34                Agreements were lower for GT, CEJ, and RS.
35  and KTW; Kappa with 95% CI was used for GT, CEJ, and RS; quadratic weighted Kappa with 95% CI was us
36  and KTW; Kappa with 95% CI was used for GT, CEJ, and RS; quadratic weighted Kappa with 95% CI was us
37 ificant increase (P </=0.05) was observed in CEJ-AP and CEJ-JE distances.
38 iables accounted for 19% of the variation in CEJ-AC distances.
39  significant increase in the distances of JE-CEJ and CEJ-AP.
40 cclusal stent of the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) as a reference landmark has been the method of choi
41 ated the accuracy of cementoenamel junction (CEJ) identification using ultrasound by comparing it to
42  coronal root at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) in 95% of teeth and focal resorption of intact enam
43  and 15 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), respectively.
44 istance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and alveolar bone crest and the thickness of facial
45 stances between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and alveolar process (AP) crest, as well as between
46 istance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the alveolar bone level (BL) and 2) the prevale
47 istance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the alveolar bone level (BL).
48 thelium (JE) to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the CEJ to the alveolar process crest (AP) were
49 edge as near to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) as possible.
50  within 1 mm of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) for 58% of the sites treated.
51  was coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) in both groups, gingival margins were at a more api
52  6 mm apical to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) of the maxillary fourth premolar (PM4; thin bone ov
53 rgical distances of cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to bone crest (CEJ-BC), CEJ to base of the defect (
54 e distance from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar bone crest (ABC) at 20 molar sites.
55 g the distance from cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar bone crest (ABC) at 20 molar sites.
56 e distance from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar crest (P = 0.66 for initial measure
57  graft and from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the EOR, the CEJ to the mandibular border, and t
58 dth of GR below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) was also determined.
59 etectability of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), and presence of root steps (RS) were recorded and
60 etectability of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), and presence of root steps (RSs), chairside, and o
61 rom cusp tip to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), CEJ to root apex, and cusp tip to root apex.
62  fill measured from cemento-enamel junction (CEJ)-base of the defect (BD), and the difference in the
63  the bone crest and cemento-enamel junction (CEJ).
64 s measured from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ).
65 gival margin to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ-GM [mm]) were obtained in a pilot study to design a
66                       A significantly larger CEJ-bone crest was measured in smokers (P <0.05) and pat
67 roof (FE); 2) cemento-enamel junction level (CEJ); 3) mesial root width (MRW); and 4) distal root wid
68 he MF to other anatomical landmarks were: MF-CEJ = 15.52 +/- 2.37 mm, MF to the most apical portion o
69 rette smoking were independent predictors of CEJ-AC distance (P < or =0.05).
70  the difference in the measurement values of CEJ-BD from baseline to 6 months denoting the bone fill
71                          A high variation of CEJ-bone crest (0.8 to 7.2 mm) was detected.
72                                      Shorter CEJ-BC was associated with shorter PSTH, wider KTW, and
73                     Square teeth had shorter CEJ-BC, wider KTW, and thicker GT.
74                     Baseline PD and surgical CEJ-BD were statistically significant predictors of CAL
75 to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the CEJ to the alveolar process crest (AP) were obtained.
76 R, the CEJ to the mandibular border, and the CEJ to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN).
77 ured three miniscrews located 7 mm below the CEJ, exhibited the least molar inclination and the small
78 ificantly less, and the distance between the CEJ and bone crest was significantly greater for teeth w
79 r process (AP) crest, as well as between the CEJ and junctional epithelium (JE) level, were measured;
80                     The distance between the CEJ to a reference point was measured using two clinical
81 emento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the EOR, the CEJ to the mandibular border, and the CEJ to the inferio
82  The average bone thickness at 3 mm from the CEJ for the maxillary right central incisor was 1.41 mm
83 ificant difference for the distance from the CEJ to the base of the defect, with CBVT measurements un
84 was administered, and a measurement from the CEJ to the bone crest was made by sounding through the a
85 tudy demonstrates that most FORL involve the CEJ, and the presence of focal lesions at this site sugg
86 ess <1 mm at the level of 4 mm apical to the CEJ (odds ratio 2.733, 95% confidence interval 1.644 to
87  thin bone over root); 2) 6 mm apical to the CEJ of PM2 (dehiscence defect); and 3) 10 mm distoapical
88 nce defect); and 3) 10 mm distoapical to the CEJ of the maxillary canine (edentulous ridge).
89 stent to the gingival margin (GM) and to the CEJ.
90  vs. B- (visually detectable or undetectable CEJ, respectively); and CL-S vs. CL-D (shallow or deep c
91  backward stepwise regression analysis, with CEJ-AC distance as the dependent variable.
92 dentify those variables most associated with CEJ-AC distance.
93 efined as having two sites per quadrant with CEJ-ABC distances that were significantly greater than t
94 excellent agreement for most variables, with CEJ and RS showing fair agreement.